cynicist
Regular Member
imported post
I was just looking over a website about restoring firearm rights, and as it turns out, the 9th Federal District (and probably others) recently switched it's position on whether the right to bear arms is a civil right.
Until recently, DV convicts who had their rights to bear restored by a WA court could keep and bear under federal law as well, because of the federal statute that explains that convictions that have later had civil rights restored as not counted as convictions for firearm eligibility purposes. However, they ruled that the right to bear arms is not a civil right, so even if you get a court order restoring your firearm rights, it may not count because it is not a "civil right" in the 9th District.
We need a law stating the the right to bear arms is legally a civil right, or it to be taken to the US Supreme Court and declared such, whichever comes firtst.
I was just looking over a website about restoring firearm rights, and as it turns out, the 9th Federal District (and probably others) recently switched it's position on whether the right to bear arms is a civil right.
Until recently, DV convicts who had their rights to bear restored by a WA court could keep and bear under federal law as well, because of the federal statute that explains that convictions that have later had civil rights restored as not counted as convictions for firearm eligibility purposes. However, they ruled that the right to bear arms is not a civil right, so even if you get a court order restoring your firearm rights, it may not count because it is not a "civil right" in the 9th District.
We need a law stating the the right to bear arms is legally a civil right, or it to be taken to the US Supreme Court and declared such, whichever comes firtst.